@Lenders + Pratik:
The discussion can be continued later. But round 2 starts soon.
That's why I think a good compromise for round 2 would be to apply the advantage-set(no-tiebreak-set) format (like Pratik suggested), but retain the one-set format.
That should make it more "tennis like" (winner would need a two games lead) without expanding particular matches too much (although theoretically it could go to 36-34 or so, of course).

Why not do both though? I understand the idea of rushing through the first three rounds, lots of matchups most people don't even care about much and more chance at 'upsets'. But from R4 onwards, it's safe to assume matchups will be interesting for the most part and it's not like there is not plenty of time to play the game: we could both play out tiebreaks in sets 1 and 2 and make set 3 an advantage set. We could get epic scorelines like 7-6 (6), 6-7 (4), 17-15

R4 onwards, I like this idea. I just hope it wouldn't be too complicated to follow.
It would also serve to be a transition between the game scoring and the point scoring. i.e.1vote=1point(which I hope to start by SF, as long as participation is good).

The discussion can be continued later. But round 2 starts soon.
That's why I think a good compromise for round 2 would be to apply the advantage-set(no-tiebreak-set) format (like Pratik suggested), but retain the one-set format.
That should make it more "tennis like" (winner would need a two games lead) without expanding particular matches too much (although theoretically it could go to 36-34 or so, of course).